Quick Links

Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA

The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.

Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Wisconsin] Fake Democratic primary contenders ahoy!

Posts

If you do benefit from it, then can you really say that you don't have a horse in this race?

If I had to peg him, he's a 20-30 something from a semi-wealthy ($60-80K a year) white collar family in a strong republican background whose dad was a supervisor from a very pro-union workforce who wanted raises slightly above inflation and another sick day this year. His dad came home bitching every night about how the unions are fucking over the country because they want to be treated like human beings and his boss above him (Upper management, $300,000+ a year) told him if he didn't get them to budge the money would come out of his bonus.

If you do benefit from it, then can you really say that you don't have a horse in this race?

If I had to peg him, he's a 20-30 something from a semi-wealthy ($60-80K a year) white collar family in a strong republican background whose dad was a supervisor from a very pro-union workforce who wanted raises slightly above inflation and another sick day this year. His dad came home bitching every night about how the unions are fucking over the country because they want to be treated like human beings and his boss above him (Upper management, $300,000+ a year) told him if he didn't get them to budge the money would come out of his bonus.

It has to be said at this point, I don't think any public school teachers are going to lose a leg to the pencil sharpener in the break room, nor is your average legislative secretary prone to having shipping crates dropped on her head.

There's a difference between opposing unions, and opposing public sector unions, and a further difference between either of those and opposing some powers that public sector unions may wield. But this thread has gone far afield now.
Given the conflicting reports from Prosser / Bradley, and the investigation from the Dale County Sheriff, are we all at the point where we figure whoever's at fault, the remedy is a resignation?

Yes but non unionized teaching would become a 4 year profession since they'd just keep firing everywhere to bring in new cheaper teachers.

but god knows teachers don't need experience

Because of the way things are set up, many states DO lay off every teacher every year, because it's otherwise impossible to do the legitimate firing that sometimes needs to happen. Obviously, there are ways to solve retention issues, but once again you're promoting a false equivalence and oversimplifying the issue so you can get a "good" zinger in.

It has to be said at this point, I don't think any public school teachers are going to lose a leg to the pencil sharpener in the break room, nor is your average legislative secretary prone to having shipping crates dropped on her head.

There's a difference between opposing unions, and opposing public sector unions, and a further difference between either of those and opposing some powers that public sector unions may wield. But this thread has gone far afield now.
Given the conflicting reports from Prosser / Bradley, and the investigation from the Dale County Sheriff, are we all at the point where we figure whoever's at fault, the remedy is a resignation?

You're right and wrong. Teachers need physical protection from dangerous students too. However the hours and life of a teacher is very demanding, so it is not unusual that a teacher would want maybe more benefits or a pension for their years of service in that mentally grueling job.

I can say this I've held many a jobs, the hardest jobs I've had were the ones I've had to think a lot in. Lifting boxes is easy chump work, dangerous, but easy. Teaching, I imagine, is probably harder on someone's body so wanting a mental health day instead of more paid time off for being hurt is probably a very real want and requirement.

Unions don't need to always protect against safety so much as just level the playing field of bargaining. Teachers especially are not often a unique enough snowflake like me, and maybe you, where they can say "I want this or I'm gone" and shutdown the entire operation.

Given the conflicting reports from Prosser / Bradley, and the investigation from the Dale County Sheriff, are we all at the point where we figure whoever's at fault, the remedy is a resignation?

Yes?

I mean, violence in the halls of justice is simply not acceptable. There is enough evidence that the Wisconsin supreme court is being compromised by external factors that we really don't need the threat of physical intimidation between justices thrown on the pile. Whomever started the violence should step down.

Of course, I feel that Detharin will support me in this, because I am pretty sure that a female 61 year-old former school teacher would never attack a 67 year old former Republican legislator with a history of abusive behavior with her neck*, and it's okay to be in favor of something that will help my personal cause.

I wouldn't be so sure if I were you... But I think I agree with the result. Physical altercations are really beyond the line here.

And whoever leaves, it'll still be a republican appointed to the court. Self interest makes it easy to make the right call this time!

Well, I'm not sure how the situation plays out if a judge steps down. There's probably another election scheduled to fill the gap, which I'd imagine would go to the Democrats at this point, if the longtime incumbant were out of the picture. Even if Walker can just assign a sycophant to play out Prosser's 10 year term, it's still a major black eye on the Republicans (their guy gets re-elected and immediately starts beating female co-workers?) just prior to important recall elections.

I wouldn't be so sure if I were you... But I think I agree with the result. Physical altercations are really beyond the line here.

And whoever leaves, it'll still be a republican appointed to the court. Self interest makes it easy to make the right call this time!

Well, I'm not sure how the situation plays out if a judge steps down. There's probably another election scheduled to fill the gap, which I'd imagine would go to the Democrats at this point, if the longtime incumbant were out of the picture. Even if Walker can just assign a sycophant to play out Prosser's 10 year term, it's still a major black eye on the Republicans (their guy gets re-elected and immediately starts beating female co-workers?) just prior to important recall elections.

The problem is, this story isn't being covered much in the media at all. Has anyone linked to a mainstream news source? All the links I've seen have been from blogs.

If the media did their jobs, then not only would Prosser be questioned, but the same goes for the other conservative judges. Remember, they sided with Prosser in the union vote. So by attacking Prosser, Bradley was also attacking them. Prosser responds to this, not by making a case for himself, but by trying to choke her. Reports are that immediately after the incident, one of the Judges told her, "You were not choked!" That's the words of someone trying to cover his own ass.

There are two accusations. First, that Prosser choked Bradley. Second, that Bradley charged at Prosser with her fist.

Bradley has gone on the record and said that the first accusation has happened. No one denies this. But no one has gone on the record and said that Bradley charged at Prosser with her fists. I find that odd. If that actually happened, then Prosser or one of the other judges should say that on the record. If it didn't happen, then the other justices should be willing to say so. After all, one justice was willing to say to Bradley, "You were not choked!" Why won't one of them say, "Bradley didn't charge at him?"

The media needs to start questioning the judges and asking them if Bradley actually charged Prosser.

Heated words were exchanged. Bradley wanted Prosser to leave--he didn't. Bradley stands and approaches Prosser to usher him from the room. Prosser then chokes Bradley (maybe he thought she was going to attack first, maybe he's just a dick) and the situation goes from bad to worse.

Alternatively, maybe Bradley really was coming at him and he did defend himself by putting his hands up but then he accidentally bumped her throat?

Or she was coming at him with murder in her eyes and he responded in kind?

Or neither of those two things were really as bad as the other claims and everyone is being a silly goose?

I do know I'd like to hear more about Prosser's supposed abusive background. Where did that information come from?

Yes but non unionized teaching would become a 4 year profession since they'd just keep firing everywhere to bring in new cheaper teachers.

but god knows teachers don't need experience

Because of the way things are set up, many states DO lay off every teacher every year, because it's otherwise impossible to do the legitimate firing that sometimes needs to happen. Obviously, there are ways to solve retention issues, but once again you're promoting a false equivalence and oversimplifying the issue so you can get a "good" zinger in.

Wait I have to correct you on the teachers getting laid off every year thing. A staggering amount of them do, yes, but it's with the intention of rehiring come fall in some dumbass way to follow a fiscal policy despite the fact they still get paid when they're "laid off." My mom went through this exact thing for three years.

Supreme goosery from all parties seems the most likely outcome here. These Justices really, really do not like each other.

Except that Prosser is the only one with a history of losing his temper and being aggressive towards other people, including the rest of the Court. So no, it's more likely that he just flipped his shit than that both he and Bradley behaved inappropriately.

Now, I understand that, in this professional wrestling era, such things seem tame. But this is not professional wrestling, it's the highest court in Wisconsin.

I understand that it's entirely possible for Bradley to have taunted him or cast disparaging remarks upon his judicial fidelity, but it's the sign of a weak and violent character if he responded to such taunts by strangling the woman in her own office.

Now, I understand that, in this professional wrestling era, such things seem tame. But this is not professional wrestling, it's the highest court in Wisconsin.

I understand that it's entirely possible for Bradley to have taunted him or cast disparaging remarks upon his judicial fidelity, but it's the sign of a weak and violent character if he responded to such taunts by strangling the woman in her own office.

Of course a republican judge of any kind is going to be uncivil and maybe even go to illegal lengths to attack democrats and/or their favored groups. That's how it works and it is nothing to be upset about. The escalation of all political matters of disagreement is unavoidable and is just to be tolerated even if it rots away the fabric of society. What are you people, Care Bears?

Of course a republican judge of any kind is going to be uncivil and maybe even go to illegal lengths to attack democrats and/or their favored groups. That's how it works and it is nothing to be upset about. The escalation of all political matters of disagreement is unavoidable and is just to be tolerated even if it rots away the fabric of society. What are you people, Care Bears?

So you are okay with politicians physically assaulting each other then, is what you're saying.

Of course a republican judge of any kind is going to be uncivil and maybe even go to illegal lengths to attack democrats and/or their favored groups. That's how it works and it is nothing to be upset about. The escalation of all political matters of disagreement is unavoidable and is just to be tolerated even if it rots away the fabric of society. What are you people, Care Bears?

So you are okay with politicians physically assaulting each other then, is what you're saying.

Well, if all things are equal, and you have to lessen the quality of life of a single class, shouldn't you pick the class that has it better already? If I have to choose between corporations and middle to lower class, I'd choose to fuck over corporations.

Well personally I am more of the fuck everyone type. At this point I am not quite sure how we handle democracy is capable of handling the problems we have. We have a huge shit sandwich and no one is going to vote for taking a bite.

However the reality is that I would much rather see people acknowledging that we are in fact openly trying to fuck corporations/ the upper class/anyone with money in favor of the middle to lower classes. It may not be the best plan. Hell it may not even be a good plan. However it is an honest plan. Frankly what sickens me the most is the people that pretend their side is awesome, not corrupt, and is all that is good and pure in the world while the other side is a bunch of corrupt kitten eating assholes.

Yeah. Fuck all those lower and middle class assholes.
They abuse their power by...what's that? They have little to no power?
Oh.
Maybe that's why no one insists their side is just as corrupt, evil, and dominating. Because both sides aren't equal.

Supreme goosery from all parties seems the most likely outcome here. These Justices really, really do not like each other.

Except that Prosser is the only one with a history of losing his temper and being aggressive towards other people, including the rest of the Court. So no, it's more likely that he just flipped his shit than that both he and Bradley behaved inappropriately.

Basically, a man shoots his wife, then claims it was self-defense, even though no one can find her weapon.

Then he shoots his second wife. Again, self-defense. Again, no weapon.

To be fair, this is why eyewitness testimony is actually completely unreliable.

Yeah, thats kinda why I found it funny. Prior to sitting on the Supreme Court of Wisconsin I assume they had trial lawyer/judge experience and as a result had to deal with the uselessness of eye witness testimony.

However the reality is that I would much rather see people acknowledging that we are in fact openly trying to fuck corporations/ the upper class/anyone with money in favor of the middle to lower classes.

I am just absolutely staggered at this comment. It requires either a blindness so deep as to not see the basic structures of society, or it accepts that those structures are right and moral and good.

In the absence of government there is monarchy, oligarchy, and aristocracy. It is with a hand wizened by the experiences of dealing with the disproportionate power of the past that we have structured the present, not with desire to hurt those who would otherwise rule.

On Monday, Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board voted unanimously to keep state Rep. John Nygren (R-Marinette) off the ballot in a recall election against state Sen. Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay), saying that the GOP lawmaker fell short of the 400 valid signatures required to qualify.

Nygren has said that he will fight the decision. If he appeals in court, a judge could order the Government Accountability Board to delay the election. Board spokesman Reid Magney says that “right now were proceeding as if it’s on.”

Just more evidence of a severe lack of Republican ground game.

Now Hansen will face David VanderLeest, (R) a weaker opponent with a long court record. He’s been accused of domestic and child abuse by his ex-wife, and been taken to court for code violations in the buildings he owns. When he filed his candidacy, VanderLeest made the kind of statement that’s never good for a candidate: “I have made mistakes in my past... Any scrutiny of court records or filings will show that my ex-wife recanted all statements ever made against me in any courtroom in Wisconsin.”

That... that's just... beautiful.

THREAD NOTE: Upon determining my workload, I'm probably not going to have time to make a new thread tomorrow, and I'm going to a convention this weekend, so if this gets locked, someone else can make the new thread, or I'll get to it next week.

I'm in favor of unions because without them, we wouldn't have weekends or child labor laws or overtime pay or paid time off.

I'm in favor of unions because a one party corporatist dystopia would be a shitty thing for my children and children's children to deal with.

I would be in favor of corporations over unions if unions had almost driven corporations into the sea. I would say, "guys, we need corporations to make our stuff and pay our wages. Communism generally doesn't work out very well." But that's not about to happen.

I don't need to be in a union or even have union members in my family to know that what Walker is doing will ruin a very successful way of life in a state with a strong middle class. Detharin, I know you're trying to be the cynical realist here, but just stop for a second and think about what our society would be like if we had never allowed employee unions. Their success list is so long, and includes so many things we now take for granted, that I can't imagine that you don't benefit from any of it. If you do benefit from it, then can you really say that you don't have a horse in this race?

You realize that we are talking about public sector Unions here, they do not compete with corporations. In the private sector less than 10% of people work for a Union. Comparing the history of Unions to the now of Unions is quite a bit different. Historically Unions did primarily focus on workers rights issues.

Of course what Walker is doing will ruin a very successful way of life especially if your way of life requires more and more money from the public sector. You keep combining public and private sector Unions into this one nebulous ball while in fact they are very separate things and tossing in all the great and wonderful things private sector Unions have fought for into the ball with Public sector Unions. Two completely separate beasts, with two separate agendas. See the private sector does not get to decided who it negotiates against, moreover as stated if a Union makes unreasonable demands the company may just shut down. Now with the public sector that is completely the opposite and their focus is one getting who they want across the table and as much as they can because it is very difficult to kill a state.

I am just absolutely staggered at this comment. It requires either a blindness so deep as to not see the basic structures of society, or it accepts that those structures are right and moral and good.

In the absence of government there is monarchy, oligarchy, and aristocracy. It is with a hand wizened by the experiences of dealing with the disproportionate power of the past that we have structured the present, not with desire to hurt those who would otherwise rule.

Ahh but we are not talking about government, we are talking about the court of public opinion. We know why the Corporations and the Unions act (money).

Detharin on June 2011

If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."